Rajen Pandey vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Rajen Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 231 dated 14.07.2021, registered at Police Station Gadpuri, Palwal, under Sections 406 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code (later amended to include Sections 420, 379, 411, 506, and 120-B IPC, with Section 418 IPC deleted). The FIR was lodged by Geeta Rani, who alleged that the petitioner failed to make payment for material supplied on 08.07.2021, pursuant to a purchase order dated 05.07.2021, with payment due on 12.07.2021. The petitioner's counsel argued that the material was delivered and his sons were arrested, with the material recovered. The State contended that the petitioner's company, H.F. Infrastructure, did not exist at the address where the material was unloaded. The petitioner countered that the company exists and has a GST number, and the material was unloaded elsewhere due to road conditions. The petitioner also expressed willingness to settle the dispute. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to join the investigation, which he failed to do.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's explicit direction to join the investigation, despite having expressed willingness to do so in the petition. The petitioner's explanation for non-compliance was deemed unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's involvement in three other cases of cheating, which weighed against granting anticipatory bail. The Court found no reason to grant further time for the petitioner to join the investigation. The issue of the existence of the company and the GST number, and the dispute with the complainant, became secondary to the petitioner's non-compliance with the Court's order and his criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering his failure to join the investigation as directed by the Court and his involvement in other cheating cases? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner initially sought anticipatory bail, claiming the material was delivered and payment was due. He also stated his company exists and has a GST number, and offered to settle the dispute. He later claimed an unavoidable reason prevented him from joining the investigation and requested more time. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's company did not exist at the specified address. Crucially, the State informed the Court that the petitioner failed to comply with the previous order to join the investigation. The State also highlighted the petitioner's involvement in three other FIRs related to cheating.